So. How does “the Heartland” - is that a red or a blue? - feel now, what with all those farm subsidies being slashed, and you sons being kept in the war via the “backdoor draft” (with no armor)?
Specifically to the fellow in Washington DC: As a born and bred New Yorker myself who saw his home town get hit, how does the complete failure (or unwillingness) to catch the real perpetrator of the attacks set with you?
So far I haven’t seen any refutations, no facts to back up anything proBush, just a bunch of political partisan hack bullshit.
It’s the BBQ pit, I can say that and get away with it.
You know that most farm subsidies go to large argibusinesses, and that cutting them has been a liberal (as opposed to Democrat) goal for a decade, right? And that cutting the subsides makes it easier for small farms to compete with the large argibusinesses? the author of Fast Food Nation (who cites reliable sources; I can look them up if you insist), a generally more “liberal” than “conservative” book, practically cums with excitement over the whole subsidies thing. I don’t know how the heartland feels about cutting subsidies, but they ought to be jumping with joy.
Additionally, the US has been under considerable international pressure to cut farm subsidies for some time. This does more good for poor countries than much any recent president has done.
The OP argues that Bush’s failure to attack the entire world is proof he’s going to. That is hard to argue with, now isn’t it?
Ah, but large agribusinesses employ people. There has to be some way a “spin” could be put on it by a clever imaginative person, conjuring images of dustbowls, Grapes of Wrath, farmers will riot in the streets stuff (wink wink say no more). :eek: Other than that, you’re right, I thought I had hit on a good one. That damn devil is always in the stinkin details.
No worries; the odds were in your favor, so it was a pretty safe bet. And there is still a chance he’ll cut the 20% that goes to small farmers, rather than the 80% that doesn’t. If he doesn’t, well, you know what they say about stopped clocks. And, hey, you’ve still got plenty of other ammunition.
Or as Randy Newman puts it in Political Science
"No one likes us-I don’t know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let’s drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they’re spiteful and they’re hateful
They don’t respect us-so let’s surprise them
We’ll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia’s crowded and Europe’s too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada’s too cold
And South America stole our name
Let’s drop the big one
There’ll be no one left to blame us
We’ll save Australia
Don’t wanna hurt no kangaroo
We’ll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin’, too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We’ll set everybody free
You’ll wear a Japanese kimono
And there’ll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let’s drop the big one now
Let’s drop the big one now"
I thought that was how it works…Saddam didn’t produce WMD so it was proof he had them. I never did get that, how in the hell do you prove a condition DOESN’T exist? Not that I don’t think he had 'em, I know he did. And now I’m just REALLY curious about where in the hell they ARE.
wtf? While I was a fan of lifting the sanctions, I felt more time would have made that possible, quite possibly alleviating the need for invasion. As a result, I’m not really the person to defend invading Iraq looking for WMDs. That said, the difficulty was not that Saddam failed to prove a negative, but rather that he failed to abide by the terms of surrender he agreed to after he, you know, invaded a country he owed money to. His position was not impossible, merely uncomfortable. I sincerely hope you don’t think I’m going to defend Bush; I dislike the man intensely. Sometimes his policies look like they might be correct (as could well be the case in cutting farm subsidies) and sometimes his attackers are a little…over zealous in suggesting that he is e.g. trying to conquer the entire world.
I don’t think that Saddam’s problem was in failing to turn over WMDs, but rather one of failing to allow searches he had agreed to allow, and failing to account for chemical weapons that we know he had because we sold them to him. I do not profess to be an expert, and would be happy to be proven wrong, but I don’t think the situation is quite what you paint it as being.
Damn, that’s good stuff…What it all boils down to is that what makes a country great isn’t the size of its economy, or its army, or the number of patents or movies it produces. A “great” country acts in a “great” way.
And “great” certainly ain’t what I’d call our behaviour over the past 4 years.
Iraq never had nukes and the U.S. govt knew it. Iran and N. Korea do have nukes and they’re just waiting to smuggle them into the country. (Houston please!)
The old lady who seems surprised that she isn’t having a dream and begins to search for her purse when the cashier announces the total is annoying. The fat sweaty slob driving a '72 Maverick who drifts into your lane because he’s trying to masturbate while driving is annoying. The couple in McDonald’s who brought the three fighting brats and a screaming infant and are oblivious to their effect on the world around them is annoying.
Treading on basic American principles and restricting liberty at every turn is tyranny.
